1 HN, J C.R.P.No.1746_2022 APHC010296982022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY,THE THIRTY FIRST DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1746/2022 Between: 1. ZION PRAYER HOUSE, REPT. BY ITS AUTHORIZED PERSON PEDAPUDI SAMSON S/O PREMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 51YRS OCC. PASTOR, R/O H.NO.27-10-26, 1ST LANE KANNAVARITHOTA GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC 2. DARSI KOTI RATNAM (DIED), A 3. PEDAPUDI SAMSON, S/O PREMAIAH AGED ABOUT 51YRS, OCC. PASTOR R/O ZION PRAYER HOUSE R/O H.NO.27-10-26, 1ST LANE KANNAVARITHOTA GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC ...PETITIONER(S) AND 1. B TIMOTHY, A 2. JOSEPH P KORIYAN, S/O P.J. KORIYAN AGED ABOUT 66YRS, OCC. PASTOR R/O HEBRON CHURCH GOLCONDA 'X' ROADS HYDERABAD 3. K JAYA RAJ, S/O ANANDA RAJ AGED ABOUT 66YRS, OCC. RETD.EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO.1-7-802/3/1, RAM NAGAR HYDERABAD 4. RAGI VEERA CHARI, S/O NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 50YRS, OCC. BUSINESS R/O H.NO.304, VENKATA SAI APARTMENTS SANTHOSH NAGAR, MIRYALAGUDA NALGONDA DISTRICT 5. T YESUPADAM, S/O JEEVAIAH AGED ABOUT 66YRS, OCC. RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO.7-1-307/5, SUBHASH NAGAR SANTHOSH NAGAR, HYDERABAD 6. GUJJARLAPUDI PUSHPARAJ DIED, A 7. GURRAM PRASADA RAO, S/O DEVADANAM AGED ABOUT 60YRS, R/O H.NO.7-17-385/A 2ND LANE, RATNAPURI COLONY ARUNDALPET, GUNTUR GUNTUR JCJC 8. SEELI DEVA VARAM, (NOT PRESSED IN CMA) 9. KARRI ABRAHAM LINCOLN, S/O RAJA RAO AGED ABOUT 48YRS R/O D.NO.5-58-4/1, 3RD LANE COBALTPET, GUNTUR GUNTUR 2 HN, J C.R.P.No.1746_2022 JCJC 10. VARIKUTI VAMSI VARDHANA REDDY, S/O VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 65YRS, R/O FLAT NO.209, SRI SAI HOMES 1ST LANE, VIDYA NAGAR GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC 11. GUJJARLAPUDI IMMANUEL, S/O PARAM JYOTHI AGED ABOUT 58YRS, R/O D.NO.7-17-369/ 186, 5TH LANE, MALLIKARJUNAPET BEHIND KOLPHIN CENTER GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC 12. DEVARAKONDA ROSAIAH, SLO NAGEMDRAM AGED ABOUT 48YRS, R/O H.NO.4-3-20/ 1 2/1 - RAMMANEPET KORETIPADU PARK GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC 13. B RATNA BABU, S/O SANGEETHA RAO AGED ABOUT 48YRS, R/O FLAT NO.8, MANU APARTMENTS 11/2 - ARUNDELPET, GUNTUR GUNTUR DISTRICT 14. ZION PRAYER HOUSE SOCIETY, REPT. BY ITS SECRETARY CHINNAPPA IJAIAH S/O GEORGE, R/O D.NO.27-10-2016, 1ST LANE KANNAVARITHOTA, GUNTUR 15. DONE YESU RATNAM, S/O LATE DAVID AGED ABOUT 70YRS, OCC. RETD. EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO.27-6-31A 5TH LANE, KANNAVARITHOTA GUNTUR, GUNTUR JCJC ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India,praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein,the High Court may be pleased toAggrieved by the order and decree in CMA No.16/2019, dt.21-03- 2022 on the file of the XII Additional District Court, Guntur District at Guntur confirming the orders in I.A.No.461/2018 in 0.S.No.515/2015, dt.30-09-2019 on the file of the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur Counsel for the Petitioner(S): 1. P NAGENDRA REDDY Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. C JHANSI RANI 2. B SARVOTHAM REDDY 3. VENKATA DURGA RAO ANANTHA 4. NAGESWARA RAO CHAVA 5. 3 HN, J C.R.P.No.1746_2022 ORDER: 1. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 2019, whereby the CMA filed by the petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed in I.A.No.461 of 2018, was dismissed. The petitioners are the plaintiffs and filed the suit in O.S.No.515 of 2015 seeking the relief of permanent injunction, restraining the defendants and their agents from causing obstructions in the functioning of the plaintiffs, as well as in conducting prayers at the 1st plaintiff’s church. 2. The suit was posted for filing of the affidavit in lieu of chief examination of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs could not submit the affidavit in lieu of chief examination, and the suit was dismissed for default on 18.09.2018. 3. The petitioners filed I.A.No.461 of 2018 stating that the deponent was unwell and suffering with age-related ailments, and therefore could not meet his counsel in time for preparation of the chief affidavit. In the meantime, the suit was dismissed for default. 4. I.A.No.461 of 2018 filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned II additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur, vide order dated 30.09.2019, primarily on the ground that the petitioner was granted ample opportunities and that the suit was posted for trial from 15.02.2017 till the date of dismissal, i.e., 19.09.2018. The learned Judge also recorded that a conditional order was passed on 01.08.2018, and thereafter three more adjournments were granted by imposing costs on the plaintiff. 4 HN, J C.R.P.No.1746_2022 5. It is further held that the plaintiff failed to deposit the costs with the District Legal Service Authority in compliance with the conditional order, and on 19.09.2018, the plaintiff was called absent, with no representation till 05:00 p.m., and as such, the suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. It is also held that merely stating that he is aged and could not meet his advocate in time is not a justifiable cause for his absence, and accordingly, the I.A. was dismissed which was filed by the petitioner. 6. The XII Additional District Judge, Guntur, dismissed C.M.A.No.16 of 2019 by upholding the order passed by the II Additional Junior Civil Judge, Guntur. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC was filed well within time. However, on the sole reason that the petitioner did not furnish any document to show that he was ill, the I.A filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order of dismissal for non-prosecution was dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioner ought to be granted an opportunity to contest the suit on merits, and it is therefore prayed that the orders passed in C.M.A.No.16 of 2019 and I.A.No.461 of 2018 be set aside. 8. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 6 submits that the I.A. filed by the petitioner does not disclose that the deponent therein represents the 1st plaintiff, and that the affidavit is filed to protect the interests of the other plaintiffs. It is also submitted that there is no authorization in 5 HN, J C.R.P.No.1746_2022 favour of the 2nd plaintiff for filing the suit, and that the suit itself is not maintainable. 9. The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.7 to 13 submits that for petitioner failed to mention the nature of the ailment in the affidavit filed under Order IX, Rule 9 of CPC. It is further submitted that the ground taken by the petitioner that C.M.A.No.24 of 2016 was pending, and that the entire file and record of O.S.No.515 of 2015 was transmitted to the Court considering C.M.A.No.24 of 2016, is a new ground raised at the stage of C.M.A.No.16 of 2019. It is also submitted that the suit for injunction is not maintainable, as no fresh cause of action has been furnished and no interim orders were granted when the suit was taken on file. 10. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. 11. The short point for consideration is whether the plaintiff ought to be granted an opportunity to submit the affidavit lieu of chief examination for deciding the matter on merits, or whether the matter can be concluded at this stage solely on the ground that the petitioner did not specify the ailment which prevented him from contacting his counsel. 12. The contentions raised by the respondents with regard to the authorization of the petitioner would have to be dealt with by the trial Court, which would deal with the suit on merits. On perusal of the record, the petitioner ought to have been granted an opportunity to file the affidavit in lieu 6 HN, J C.R.P.No.1746_2022 of chief examination to substantiate the averments of the plaint. The respondents would, in any event, have an opportunity of cross-examining the plaintiff for adjudication of the matter on merits. 13. Considering the submission that the petitioner has not complied with the order directing payment of costs to the District Legal Services Authority, this C.R.P is allowed subject to the petitioner paying an amount of Rs.5,000/- to the account of District Legal Service Authority, Guntur. 14. Considering that the suit was filed in the year 2015, the learned trial Judge shall endeavor to dispose of the suit on merits within a period of nine (09) months from the date of receipt of this order. 15. One more opportunity is granted to the petitioner to submit the affidavit in lieu of chief examination within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. By that time, the petitioner shall also pay the costs to the account of the District Legal Services Authority, Guntur, and annex a copy of the said receipt to the affidavit filed in lieu of chief examination. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N Date:31.03.2026 NKA 7 HN, J C.R.P.No.1746_2022 168 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO: 1746 of 2022 Date: 31.03.2026 NKA